PITTSBURGH – A Canonsburg couple have refuted allegations that they are responsible for mold exposure injuries their home buyers incurred, after the sale of the property.
Brandi Bober and Jamie Semetkosky of New Kensington first filed suit in the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas on Nov. 2 versus Samuel Arabia and Pamela Arabia of Canonsburg, and Certified Home Inspection Services, LLC, of Irwin.
“In the fall of 2021, the Arabias sold the property to plaintiffs. The property included a two-story brick front single-family home. The final settlement date for the property occurred on Nov. 8, 2021. Prior to the final settlement date, CHIS performed a home inspection of the home. For many years prior to the sale of the property from the Arabias to the plaintiffs and through the present time, the home was covered with siding manufactured by Louisiana-Pacific (LP),” the suit said.
“Unbeknownst to the plaintiffs at the time of the sale of the property, the LP siding on the home was defective and for many years it had absorbed water and developed and/or harbored mold, mildew and other toxins. At the time of the sale of the property throughout the fall of 2021, the Arabias were aware that the LP siding on the home was defective and as a result it had absorbed water and/or harbored mold, mildew and other toxins. To that end, in the late 1990s and early 2000s, the Arabias were class members in a class action lawsuit brought against Louisiana-Pacific which related to the defective siding on the home.”
The suit added that the class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon and was brought because the LP siding would, over time, “decay, fall apart, crack and it fostered the development of fungus and mildew – specifically, the siding would break, absorb water, and develop fungus and mildew over time.”
“The Arabias, through their participation in the class action lawsuit or otherwise, became aware of the dangers created by the defective LP siding. As a result of this class action lawsuit, the Arabias received $4,404.18. However, rather than remove the problematic LP siding, the Arabias left it in place and covered most of the LP siding with a layer of new vinyl siding. Despite the Arabias’ knowledge of the defective LP siding, when they sold the property to the plaintiffs, the Arabias did not notify the plaintiffs of the LP siding verbally, in writing, in the Seller Disclosure Statement, or otherwise. The Arabias, as sellers of the property, had a duty to notify the plaintiffs during the sale of the home in fall of 2021 of the defective LP siding and the consequences. Additionally, prior to the final settlement date for the property, CHIS, through its agents, servants or employees, conducted a home inspection on Sept. 8, 2021,” the suit stated.
“At the time of the home inspection, a limited portion of the LP siding was not covered by the new vinyl siding added by the Arabias. While some of the LP siding was exposed and visible, the plaintiffs were not aware and had no way to know that it was defective LP siding that was hazardous, dangerous, and subject to a substantial class action lawsuit. CHIS, through the course of its home inspection, knew or should have known of the defective and hazardous LP siding when it conducted a visual inspection of the outside of the home. Despite this, CHIS did not notify the plaintiffs of the defective and dangerous LP siding. CHIS had a duty to advise the plaintiffs of the defective and dangerous LP siding. In the ensuing months and year after taking possession of the property, plaintiffs began to develop serious health issues.”
Subsequent laboratory tests performed upon the plaintiffs showed “significant exposure to environmental toxins” and investigation later positively identified the presence of “mold, mildew and other toxins in the home” due to the LP siding, thus rendering it uninhabitable.
“As a result of the defendants’ failure to notify plaintiffs of the dangerous and defective LP siding, plaintiff Brandi Bober, suffered the following injuries due to her exposure to the toxins harbored by the LP siding: Mold toxicity, dizziness, nausea, excessive perspiration, an abnormal sensation of movement, vestibular migraine, lightheadedness, disorientation, a bouncing up and down feeling of motion, a feeling of disconnect from her body, migraine symptoms including pain, nausea, and light and sound sensitivity, fatigue, eye strain, cognitive difficulties, joint pain/swelling, tinnitus, anxiety and depression, digestive upset, vomiting, diarrhea and electric shock pains throughout her body,” the suit said.
“As a result of the defendants’ failure to notify plaintiffs of the dangerous and defective LP siding, plaintiff Jamie Semetkosky, suffered the following injuries due to her exposure to the toxins harbored by the LP siding: Mold toxicity, shortness of breath requiring an inhaler, tingling fingers and toes, fatigue, lack of mental focus, extreme cold sensations, sharp body pains, spine and joint pain, muscle fatigue and weakness, sinus drainage, feeling flushed in the face, burning and chilling sensations in her body, heartburn and acid reflux.”
UPDATE
In a Dec. 11 answer and new matter to the complaint, the Arabia defendants denied the plaintiffs’ substantive allegations and charged that they were not responsible for the plaintiffs’ mold exposure-related injuries.
“Plaintiffs’ claims are or may be barred in whole and/or in part by the applicable statute of limitations. Plaintiffs’ claims are or may be barred by the doctrines of res judicata and/or collateral estoppel. Plaintiffs’ complaint fails to state a cause of action upon which relief can be granted against answering defendants. All allegations pertaining to agency, employment, supervision or control are specifically denied, and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred or limited by the terms of the Pennsylvania Comparative Negligence Act,” per their new matter, in part.
“At all times relevant hereto, plaintiffs assumed the risk of their own conduct, and their claims and causes of action are or may be barred as a matter of law. Any injuries or damages sustained by plaintiffs are due to the intervening, superseding acts of the third parties over whom answering defendants had no control or right of control. Plaintiffs may lack standing to prosecute the causes of action set forth in the plaintiffs’ complaint. The injuries, damages and losses sustained by the plaintiffs, if any, were and/or may have been caused entirely, or may have been contributed to, by the acts and/or omissions of individuals and/or entities over which answering defendants had no control or right of control. No act or omission of answering defendants was the proximate cause of the plaintiffs’ alleged injuries and damages.”
Lastly, the Arabia defendants also asserted cross-claim liability against their co-defendant, Certified Home Inspection Services, LLC, for the plaintiffs’ damages.
For counts of negligence, violation of real estate seller disclosure laws, negligent misrepresentation, unfair or deceptive trade practices and breach of contract, the plaintiff is seeking damages in excess of the jurisdictional limits of arbitration, plus interest and costs.
The plaintiff is represented by R. Sean O’Connell of Robb Leonard & Mulvihill, in Pittsburgh.
The Arabia defendants are represented by Suzanne R. Fisher of Cipriani & Werner, in Blue Bell.
Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas case GD-23-012707
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com